yalla

Somewhere in a previous recent thread [which I cannot now find] someone cast doubt on the common understanding that Paul's epistle to the Romans was actually written to the Romans and that that title was a later addition by whoever.

At the time I was reminded about the discussion by FF Bruce in his 'Commentary on Romans' (or via: amazon.co.uk) Tyndale Press 1963, where he looks at the manuscript history of Romans and notes that:
-the references to Rome contained in the text at 1.7 and 1.15 are missing in some mss [he names them] and were not known to Origen nor Ambrosiaster thus suggesting that the epistle may not have been originally addressed to christians in Rome
-but he then states that the textual context ensures that Rome was intended as " .. no other place could stand in the place of 'Rome' ...because the context [1.8-15] refers to Rome and Rome only". Page 30.

Here is the portion of text [from the RSV] to which he refers, with the omitted references to Rome replaced by asterisks :

7] To all God's beloved *****, who are called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
[8] First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.
[9] For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers,
[10] asking that somehow by God's will I may now at last succeed in coming to you.
[11] For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you,
[12] that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine.
[13] I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.
[14] I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish:
[15] so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are ****.

I cannot see why he says that this must refer to Rome?

What am I missing?

Doug Shaver

So far as I can tell, the only thing you're missing is a presupposition in favor of Christianity's historic orthodoxy.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Yalla,

This argument that the text must say Rome because the context points to it saying Rome is on a par with the typical Christian arguments that no serious scholar questions that Paul wrote to the Romans, or that No sane person questions that Paul wrote to the Romans. This simply means roughly that I have faith, you don't, so shut up, we're making money here.

The evidence is that the earliest version of the letter was not addressed to the Roman, did not contain chapters 14 and 15 and was pasted together by Marcion from some shorter letters by anonymous Jewish writer.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

There is ZERO credible evidence that Marcion knew of Paul and the Pauline writings.

1. The Pauline writings [P 46] are DATED to the mid 2nd-3rd century.

2. The Pauline writings were UNKNOWN to Heretics up to or about 180 CE based on "Against Heresies" 2.22

3. Justin Martyr claimed it was 12 ILLITERATE MEN that preached the Gospel to EVERY RACE of man. "First Apology" XXXIX"

4. Hippolytus claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but the writings of Empedocles. 'Refutation of All Heresies" 7.18

5. There is ZERO evidence that Marcion went all over the Roman Empire preaching the Jesus Christ was the SENT son of God from heaven and BORN of a Woman or that Jesus Christ was PHYSICALLY raised from the dead.

It is time to put the propaganda by the Church to an end.

The Church used MARCION to "historicise" the Pauline writings.

Based on Justin Martyr, Marcion preached ANOTHER GOD and another SON.

"First Apology" LVIII Marcion would NOT have needed the PAULINE writings to claim Jesus Christ was NOT predicted by the Jewish prophets.

stephan huller

The alleged Marcionite omission of chapters 15 and 16 is by no means established (I for one believe the material was 'retained' by Marcion). Another point in your favor yalla is that no early Father makes reference to any material before Romans 1.11. As such the reference could have been to any city. We know the Marcionites had different names associated with different epistles. The anonymous epistle in our canon (commonly identified as 'to the Ephesians although this is lacking in many early MSS) is identified as 'to the Laodiceans' in the Marcionite canon. The Muratorian canon says that the Marcionites also had an 'Epistle to the Alexandrians' as well as the 'Laodicean' epistle which points to a renaming of one of the other epistles. The truth is that there is no way to determine which epistle was so renamed. I happen to think it was 1 Corinthians but it's little more than guesswork. One could make a compelling argument that Romans might have been so named. As I noted earlier in another post, there is nothing so convincing as habit. Unfortunately not all habits are good for you.

mountainman

Hey Yalla,

You're possibly missing an examination of the chronology between the Edict of Milan and the official canonization and preservation of the most Holy text and the most Holy books of the new testament after the death of Emperor Julian c.367 CE, at which time there was a vacancy, and Damasius made his move for the position of Bishop of Rome, where Saint Peter - to whom the HJ had given the

"Keys of the Church"

- REALLY and truly DIED (The Vatican really does have bones and relics and yes, all roads lead to Rome !! )

Best wishes


Pete

andrewcriddle

IIUC The argument is that the letter is addressed to some place with a significant Christian community that Paul has not visited but has serious plans to do so.

Rome seems a likely candidate particularly if you take seriously the claim in Acts 19:21 that Paul was at about this time planning to eventually visit Rome.

Andrew Criddle

yalla

I agree Rome is a candidate but so then are all other major and minor cities of the Roman Empire except maybe a couple that Paul ostensibly visited.
That leaves a lot of candidates.

I don't take seriously most of the claims of Acts.

My point is that Bruce seemed to think it was a slam dunk fact that this extract "refers to Rome and Rome only" and I simply could not, still can not, see how he justifies that.

I suspect Doug Shaver's interpretation is correct.

Littlejohn

«...Ambrosiaster thus suggesting that the epistle may not have been originally addressed to christians in Rome...»

Your intuition is right, Yalla ...

However, the topic is VERY COMPLEX, and no one will ever reach the 'longed' truth, if first it is not 'digested' the HISTORICAL reality that the Paul of Tarsus, which appears today in the New Testament, is the result of the hallucinating syncretic 'merging' of TWO historical distinct figures, the first of which was the REAL Paul of Tarsus (though Paul was not his true name, and not even he was of Tarsus!); while the second was Saul, called 'Paul' for the same reason whereby also 'Paul of Tarsus' was called with such a pseudo-name (of course, 'pseudo' as regards the New Testament context).

None of the 'pauline epistles' was written by two personages, and a document of the early centuries, considered as reliable by the same confessional exegetes', in practice gives us indirect confirmation!

However, in some of these epistles there is of the material (a little) that once belonged to one or two letters written by 'Paul of Tarsus' (which, in reality, he also wrote more letters than those that are currently allocated to him), while in one of them there is a little of material that once belonged to one letter written by Paul / Saul between 35-40 AD.


Greetings,

Littlejohn

.

archibald

Suetonius' and Tacitus' texts refer to Chrestians in Rome, early. The former links them to Judea/Pilate, the latter to Judaism. No strong reason to think there were two Jewish cults sharing similar names around the same time. More reson to think that the two words were used for the same thing, even by Christians. This is in addition to Acts (which although unreliable, rarely gets blanket dismissal from any serious academic, historian or scholar, that I know of).

On the face of it, the case for 'not Rome' involves dealing with pieces of evidence which suggest it was Rome.

So, it seems the question is open, but on the face of it, there are more reasons from evidence to think it was Rome, than not.

Anyhows, It appears there was a Jewish community there. Why wouldn't Christianity have reached Rome?